4merper4mer
-
Posts
20,682 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by 4merper4mer
-
-
18 hours ago, oldmanfan said:
I have no idea where this is coming from, but yes police should be able to live their lives. I am very much pro law and order.
You expressed concerns that what Butker said would encourage violence against LBGT people but did not seem concerned about Kaep’s comments having similar impact on cops.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ExiledInIllinois said:
Understood.
Changing gears a bit.
Ever read this?
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140905-the-women-with-super-human-vision
Isn't it all how we perceive color?
Keep the “like dude what if what you see as red, I see as blue and what like you see as blue, I see as red…..like whoa dude” stuff in the stoner thread. This is the green things thread.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:
Same with Butker. But with Butker I am less understanding because of his views about the LGBTQ community. Comments like his get like minded folks charged up and that can result in direct harm to folks who simply want to live their lives.Cops don’t want to live their lives?
-
5 minutes ago, boyst said:
What is a female?
Well. I mean. Um.
Never mind. I retract my request if the declarator of all things this thread will allow it. I will make my request more specific and my wish is now that the Chiefs hire the specific person the article advocated,
But we have to wait for the declarator. Never forget the declarator.
-
20 minutes ago, boyst said:
no
but i used AI to respond to this efficiently and i hope it helps.
Hey there, I totally get the struggle. You want to be informative but also avoid seeming off-topic, especially in a free-flowing space like this. No worries about hurting feelings, it's all about finding the right balance! Maybe we can brainstorm some other ways to approach it?
I never met AI but heard his thoughts about practice once. Anyway I appreciate his thoughts. Can you ask him when things written or shown about a specific topic become unrelated to that topic? I’m confused about this and maybe AI can help. It can be any topic really.
It doesn’t have to be green things. I don’t want to piss him off though so the topic shouldn’t be practice, I’m not talking about practice. Oh wait. I’m not talking about a game. So we might be talking about practice. Crap I’m confused again. Just ask the question and don’t mention a specific topic.
-
Just now, Jauronimo said:
You don't have to guess what political group I belong to while you declare I am trying to censor an article to protect my political group and all the while you aren't grouping me or anyone else and you're definitely not ascribing motives...like censorship...because of the political group I belong to? Got it. Thank you for clarifying.
Ya know, maybe you should stick to calling me a racist. I think you got a little too far over your skis today.
In our shared commitment to combatting censorship, real or otherwise, I am resharing the article. Come all and read this brilliant selection from @4merper4mer's curated list of topical articles. Behold its relevance. Bask in its wisdom. Daresay I like it even more than yesterday's timeless think piece titled "Garfield - Love for Lasagna - 3/18/1982".
https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article288545627.html
I don’t group. Or at least I try very hard to avoid it. I’m sure I’ve fallen into the trap because it is a flaw in human nature. Persuasion and group are two different things. I didn’t put you in a group.
Objective groups are a thing. “People over six feet tall” is a group for example, but there is no reason to assume a lack of individuality among them. There are many factors to all of us. One of your factors appears to be a desire to define terms. “An article about desired ramifications of Butker’s speech is off topic in a thread about Butker’s speech” is a odd definition of terms from my point of view, but whatever. Look at your own words about one of your prior posts “Declaring an article to be devoid…..”. Declaring? Not opining? You’re the authority?
9 minutes ago, boyst said:if everyone could stop posting that ridiculous article it'd be great. the guy is a buffoon trying to get traction for his own name attacking the low hanging fruit because he is so majestically superior.
I just want the Chiefs to use a female kicker. Is that so wrong? I wish the Bills could get that mule from the movie while we’re at it.
-
1
-
-
Just now, boyst said:
you started the topic you can make it about anything you want. that's how posts work!
do you want to link something that defines green for us to stick on topic to your precious demands?
I don’t know any more. If I link to the definition of green in a green things thread some might think. It’s off topic but this is Off the Wall so I don’t have to be on topic but I also don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings by staying on topic or not letting them define the topic for me if they are uncomfortable with the topic or what they want the topic to be within what should be allowed to be considered the topic so I’m not really sure. Make sense?
-
5 minutes ago, boyst said:
i just like the mountains in the background. there is no real content in the photo to have a topic.
The topic is green things. I thought I was staying on topic but I guess maybe not. I need someone to guide me.
-
Levinthal’s paradox > Fermi paradox?
Now multiply them together and see what you get.
-
17 minutes ago, boyst said:
I'm confused. This is partly blue. It's not green.
Dang am I off topic again?
-
1 minute ago, Jauronimo said:
Well at least you aren't grouping anyone while you clumsily guess at my political "persuasions" and attribute sweeping motives there from.
Declaring an article to be void of meaningful content is no more a form of censorship than your suggestion that the article makes its author look bad and silly. I have not, in any way, restricted anyone's ability to consume that nonsense above or any other such nonsense and you know that. I imagine that defending the patently stupid is essentially reflexive to you at this point, a form of self preservation, but you simply must to stop conflating these misguided efforts with some form of principled defense of censorship or our first amendment rights. You are no more defending our constitutional rights than a dog barking at cars.
1. I don’t have to guess unless all your posts are “Opposite Day” posts. I attribute no motives, sweeping or otherwise. Motives require multi-step processes often exceeding three steps, so I can’t see attributing any motives on your part.
2. Perhaps you missed that the article was already erased from this thread once. It reappeared and despite it be directly related to the thread’s topic, you made a pronouncement from on high that it was not.
-
-
17 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:
His commencement speech may have inspired articles suggesting Butker is the lost Lindberg baby or that he fathered a love child with Elvis Presley. While there is a tangential connection in that these articles all involve Butker, these ridiculous articles would be equally irrelevant to any conversations taking place between functioning adults.
But since you insist, I will get you and Bob started as we discuss this highly worthy and relevant piece of journalism:
Should Butker be cut and the Chiefs be punished by the.....league I guess...and forced to cut him but then also forced to replace him with a woman?? I think the fans would love this slapstick interjection of social justice and sports. It really put the Manitoba Sea Squirrels on the map when they let a woman kick a PAT. Think about what it could do for struggling NFL attendance? The Sea Squirrels aren't just some random bums either. They are right in the mix for the Loonie Division.
Hey, maybe Butker should be court ordered to be Megan Rapinoe's butler?!? That sounds like a sitcom. A topical and relevant sitcom.
The thread’s OP is about Butker’s speech. One can safely assume that articles discussing the speech, opinions about it, and ramifications of it are on topic. This article Is written in direct response to Butker’s speech. I’m not sure how a logical person could consider it off topic. I’m guessing you didn’t find any articles linking Butker to Elvis’ love child but if you did, post away.
I can see why a demonstration of the silliness advocated by someone of your political persuasion would make you more sensitive than you already are, but as I’ve mentioned, I don’t personally put people into groups. This means I understand that you may not share the opinion of the article’s author. You needn’t deflect and wish to censor opinions that make “your side” look bad. You didn’t write the article so it doesn’t make you look bad or silly. Granted, you’ve done enough on your own already, but the article reflects poorly on its author, not you. Your convoluted reasoning in favor of censorship is something that you own though.
With all that said I don’t mind the idea of the Chiefs signing a female kicker for public relations purposes. I say they should do it but the choice is theirs.
-
4 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:
I must have missed the part of this thread where replacing Butker with a golden retriever because its "good for business" was being entertained. While I disagree that this article has any merit or relevance to the topic at hand, I do agree that it is worth your time and undivided attention and I am heartened that we see eye to eye on this issue.
And on that note, I'll leave you guys to it. Looks like you, Lonnie, Clayton, @Bob Jones, and Jugdish will have lots to talk about!
Percentage chance that article is written if Butker didn’t give his commencement speech? And you can’t fire enough synapses to connect the two things?
And now women are golden retrievers?
-
31 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:
This opinion piece is not serious enough to be considered political. And thats a pretty low bar these days. The topic is pretty broad at this point but this nonsense you have now shared twice is not in the same zip code of anything that can be considered the topic.
It’s literally an article about the topic of the thread. But you don’t think it’s on topic? If someone posted a picture of grass in a “green things” thread would you lecture them too?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, MikePJ76 said:
I'm sorry but are you proposing that Morse wanted to get cut and go play somewhere else because he didn't want to play with Josh Allen?
You are saying in effect he wanted to leave one of the best fanbases and best quarterbacks in the game so that he could go sign in one of the worst parts of the worst part of the country and play with a lesser player on a team with almost no fanbase.
and you are saying that he somehow had something to do with getting cut in Buffalo in order to do this.
Did you seriously understand what you were typing?
I pointed out that we lost several leaders that have serious demeanors and retained the goofball personalities. That could create a real leadership void. Was Morse the only viable option to create cap space? Was personality conflict involved in the equation? We don’t know this but we do know that Morse and Diggs are serious while Dion, Josh, and Knox are goofy. Maybe Josh leaned on the more mature people too much and management decided to force him to grow up a little by creating a void. That is why I’m not expecting a great start to the season but am hopeful for a good second half with a more complete Josh who is focused on being his best at his profession.
-
2 minutes ago, Ga boy said:
Yes it’s time for Josh to be the alpha leader verbally. I’m sure he’s tired of not getting the same respect as Mahoney, Lamar and Burrow. It’s his turn to be MVP which means he must be the most verbal player.
IMO it’s not so much verbal as the demeanor. He needs to come off as serious. It’s ok to have fun and he can’t lose his personality but it can’t be all fun all the time and then Mr. pouty on the sidelines when someone like Diggs wants to win. A lot has been made of Diggs/Allen falling out or whatever it was but the part that makes me curious is Morse. He’s a serious guy who is serious about his craft and out the door he went. Salary cap? Sure but why not rework it? I thought he might retire because of the concussion stuff but he signed elsewhere in six minutes. Maybe Diggs wasn’t the only one frustrated with Josh’s approach.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, boyst said:
Kaep polarized people.
Butker is being shoved in people faces because the same people who cheered for Kaep want us to be upset about Butker having an opinion which is ironic because it's not different than Kaep having one.
Kaeps polarization was entirely different. He wanted to be a little B word victim as a well paid millionaire athlete who lost his starting position. If he was still the starter or going to be he would have never done it. If at the height of his career he chose to speak out it'd be entirely different. But he's not LeBron or Gretzky. He is a footnote to a decades worth of football not because of his play.
It’s a minor point but Kaep was also being directed by his commie girlfriend. He’s not really all that bright on his own. It’s also possible that Butker is being guided by his wife, a pastor or another.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Beck Water said:
You lose.
But it's not the question of who is "butt hurt" or offended that's relevant, just as it wasn't the question of who was "butt hurt" or offended that's relevant. Both have the right to speak their minds. Both don't have the right to expect freedom from consequences to accompany their freedom of speech.Kaepernick provided enough credible evidence that he'd been blackballed due to his protests to obtain a settlement from the NFL. I don't expect Butker to suffer any actual consequences.
But the issue is the same for both: both have the right to freedom of speech, and in both cases people can support free speech AND object to what they said.
But I don't expect you to see that.
I do expect you to not put words in my mouth or imagine you know what does or does not offend me. (I don't think you understand it, but you do know it's imposing and unreasonable)
I wondered how long it would be before we'd get to the gratuitous personal insults. You don't disappoint. Well, actually, you do, but you don't surprise.
OK I don't understand the point you're making here - in fact, I couldn't parse it at all. But that's OK.
What a load. You put words in someone’s mouth by predicting they will put words in your mouth then get upset about it. For Pete’s sake.
-
10 hours ago, GunnerBill said:
Certainly better than last year. I think last year was Josh's worst since he broke out. And I am not talking about the offense. I am talking about Josh. He was less consistent with his fundamentals and his decision making was more erratic. Not that he was terrible compared to his peers. He still played like a top half dozen QB. I don't think he was top 2 or 3 in 2023 though.
I am not saying he will have a career year but I don't discount it. If the weapons around him step up I could see a big bounce back.
This is a four page thread and you are early to post. Having not read through yet my guess is that you’ll take heat for observing Josh was less than perfect last year. Third rail stuff.
My take is that 2024 will be a transition year for Allen. I’m more interested in the end than the beginning. The Bills lost an absolute ton of serious leadership. Diggs, Morse, even Davis on the O. Poyer on the D. We also lost Tre who was a definite leader but with more of a fun personality type. The O leaders that are left: Josh, Dawkins, Brown, Knox…..they are all goofballs. IMO we badly need Hyde for one more year. 2024 will require adaptability on Josh’s part in that he will have to be the adult in the room at times. He has never had to be that. We’ll see if he can do it. Part of me wonders if Beane is playing 3D chess to force the issue by picking up malcontents like Claypool and MVS. Too much comfort zone is bad for Josh. I’d like to see him pissed off more frequently and Claypool will piss just about anyone off. He is also expendable.
Allen has all the ability and on field desire that can be imagined. Will he maximize his ability by making good decisions, preparing properly and leading?
My best guess is that the first half of the season is disappointing and bewildering. I’m hopeful for the second half and even more hopeful for 2025 but he needs to get serious first. Time to grow up.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:
You put $100 in and he explodes....you get yourself a new kitchen.
Here's the list of latest odds for all the NFL.
If Watt stays healthy, I think he wins it. He's just too good.
https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/nfl/defensive-player-year-odds/
You’d have a better chance of burying a $100 bill in your yard and a money tree sprouting.
-
3
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Augie said:
I was talking about the statement from the attorney you quoted. That sounded fair and rational to me.
I don’t know who the guy is who put out the tweet with the police report. That had a bit of a jab in it.
13 minutes ago, Pecos Bills said:Seems like you're conflating the quote and tweet in that post: Don Van Natta Jr is an ESPN writer, not Scheffler's lawyer, so his only strategy is getting clicks/likes/reposts.
As an online commentator similarly disconnected from any legal ramifications, I concur that Detective Gillis sounds like he was a big mad baby this morning and probably ruined those pants by wetting them.
I did mistake the ESPN guy’s quote as being from the attorney. My bad.
-
6 minutes ago, Augie said:
What specifically is mocking about that?
He seems to be subtly making light of the officer noting his uniform pants were ripped. “I’ve never in all my years……”.
Either:
1. The officer was truly dragged to the ground and his pants ripped, in which case the damage to pants might not be a big deal but knocking an officer to the ground certainly seems to be. Nothing to make fun of there. Or
2. The officer was not really dragged to the ground so the pants weren’t really ripped at all. Why not focus on the truth of the report as a whole and leave the pants out of it?
To me he seems to deny the main portion of the police report but also acknowledge……in a mocking way……the pants being damaged. That seems dumb.
-
12 minutes ago, Augie said:
I think this is from Scottie’s attorney.
“In the early hours of the morning in advance of his tee time Scottie was going to the course to begin his pre round preparation. Due to the combination of event traffic and a traffic fatality in the area it was a very chaotic situation He was proceeding as directed by another traffic officer and driving a marked player’s vehicle with credentials visible. In the confusion,Scottie is alleged to have disregarded a different officer’s traffic signals resulting in these charges. Multiple eyewitnesses have confirmed that he did not do anything wrong but was simply proceeding as directed. He stopped immediately upon being directed to and never at any point assaulted any officer with his vehicle. We will litigate this matter as needed and he will be completely exonerated. “
I heard one of the owners of Valhalla called the Mayor and then the police department and ended up personally driving Scottie back to the course.
.
Officer Bryan Gillis is having a day to remember!!! 😂
I’m not an attorney but publicly mocking an arresting officer seems like a bad strategy to me.
Stefan Diggs Skips OTA Texans
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
Did he make any claims about being an NBA caliber hoopster?